On February 28, 2006, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that may threaten the continued viability of home school arrangements in California. In this case, In re Rachel L., a lower court decision holding that parents have a constitutional right to home school their children was reversed. The appellate court held that parents do not have such rights. Furthermore, the decision appears to have rendered the vast majority of California home schooling arrangements violative of state law.
According to the Los Angeles Times, California law does not address home schooling in its statutes – unlike thirty states that do. Apparently, the California Department of Education and local school districts have had a somewhat relaxed approach to home schooling. This has allowed the number of home schoolers to grow considerably. Estimates are that 166,000 children in California are taught at home, so the impact of this decision will be significant.
This case and two others of recent vintage, Fields v. Palmdale School District (U.S. 9th Cir. 2005) and Parker v. Hurley (U.S. 1st Cir. 2008), remind us of the fact that powerful elements within our society believe that parents have few, if any, rights over the educational content of their children. Once the state has spoken parents have to fall in line. In Palmdale, the Ninth Circuit used a dispute over psychological surveys that included questions about sex to assert that parents “have no constitutional right … to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise….” (The parents were not told about the sex-related questions when their consent for participation was sought by the school.)
In Parker, a Christian parent objected to his young child being given educational materials promoting homosexual parenting and marriage. Here again, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling which stated that “the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children.”
At bottom, the current case in California (Rachel L.), Palmdale, and Parker indicate that parents, pro-family groups, and friendly politicians will have to fight for the right to protect their children. They will need to aggressively pursue legislatively corrections. That may be possible in California regarding the status of home schooling, but it will not always be possible. Barring a legislative fix, it becomes clear how important it is to have judges on the bench who understand that the rights of parents are not derived from the state. Rather, parents have inalienable rights that supersede those of government -- particularly when the moral education of their children is at stake.
Comments (3)
Rights are not freely granted top-down by some government authority.
It is only when people feel inalienable rights in their bones can they assert them proudly and openly. Parents should not be meek and humble as supplicants and petitioners in face of government heavy handedness.
Parents have choice in how their children are to be educated, publicly, privately, or at home. This ruling in California is so feudal it sticks out as an outrage in a democracy.
Furthermore, it is parents’ duty to educate their children. School laws across the free world state that. Only in totalitarian countries is home education not permitted.
The first School Laws in America (1642) underlie the system to this day: “Universal education of youth is essential to the well-being of the State. The obligation to furnish this education rests primarily upon the parents.”
Parent groups should evolve their own Charter of Parent Rights statements and educate their members about what is decent and proper in this day and age. I am providing a link to such a statement, compiled in 1977 in Canada, and which can serve as a good starting point for others.
I was heavily involved in Home Education causes in the 80’s and do know such statements empower parents to confidently do what is right by their children.
http://www.theschoolsweneed.com/forums/attachments/43.pdf
Tunya Audain
March 8, 2008 3:47 AM | Comment Permalink
This article that begins: "On February 28, 2006, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that...." is iconic why I -- and perhaps many many others -- are not strong supporters of FRC! Because FRC seems not to understand how to correct what is going wrong about which it so plaintively wrings it's hands:
America have a serious breakdown in the checks and balances in our government structure: The legislature has long ceased to be a check and balance on our courts, thus leaving that job to the organized citizenry like FRC, and especially the ACLJ, or unorganized citizens like, in this case, homeschooling parents as individuals.
What could and should FRC -- and hopefully ACLJ -- do, rather than just "report" and wring its hands?
1. Name the three judges, (perhaps also showing their pictures, and state whether the decision was unanimous.
2. Report on who nominated and appointed each judge and when, ideally also reporting hyperlinks to the votes of the U.S. Senate on their confirmation. (And at long last, begin to hold those who approved their appointments -- if they now disagree -- their feet to the fire.)
3. Including their email addresses, or their court's email address and include a draft letter, perhaps quoting counter arguments.
4. Including hyperlinks to opposing briefs.
5. Calling upon Congress to -- at last-- beginning to exercise their appropriate constitutional responsibility to "discipline" judges who clearly "legislate" instead of "interpreting" the law.
6. Reporting on what ACLJ is doing, including hyperlinks if it is doing something that FRC is not doing.
7. And I, personally, would include pictures of the judges with hyperlinks to their websites. Finally,
8. In the actual content of the hyperlink In re Rachel L. (2008) , Cal.App.4th, FRC should include bracketed explanations to make the case meaningful, especially to remove important doubt, on the context of issues brought before the court. (And of course did the ACLU have a hand in this cased by filing a brief?!)
If memory serves me correctly, this is perhaps the 10th District, the most liberal in the nations, and these judges may also be those doing the most liberal "legislation". Why not include hyperlinks to an analysis of their "legislation" as well as some specific examples, by hyperlinks, to their shredding of our constitution? (Aren't they the ones who declared a proposition in California approved by the ballet of the citizens to be unconstitutional?
March 9, 2008 12:17 PM | Comment Permalink
As a grandmother of the early home education movement in North America, naturally I was concerned about the recent court ruling in California which basically criminalized about 200,000 home schooling parents lacking teaching credentials. Hopefully, if it is not overturned by the Supreme Court, Governor Schwarzenegger has promised legislative remedy: "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education.”
I am very impressed by the extent and depth of feeling and outrage expressed by supporters. But, I am disappointed at the hostility and shallowness of those who are opposed, either out of self-interest (teacher unions) or basic intolerance. (Just Google California home schooling ruling…)
It is because this case even came up in 2008, and because the hostility and threat can be reasserted at any time, that I would like you to read my publication in 1987 which was useful in two ways: 1) to encourage home educators, and 2) to put the education establishment on notice about the legality and imperatives driving this movement. In the article I quote John Holt as saying: “Today freedom has different enemies. It must be fought for in different ways. It will take very different qualities of mind and heart to save it.”
Published in a prestigious educator magazine, it carries weight to this day, often quoted.
My history in home education goes back to 1972 when, after being credentialed from a Teachers College, I traveled with my children to Mexico to study under Ivan Illich of deschooling fame.
There I met with John Holt. He knew I had two young children with me, ages 3 and 5, and asked if I would be enrolling them in school soon. I said I might educate them at home.
He thought this was illegal, but I said I found from my readings at Teachers College that the “otherwise” clause in most Education Acts allowed it.
He then commented that at least I would be qualified to do it, having obtained a teaching certificate. Again, I enlightened him with the fact that this was not a requirement.
He then posed the thoughtful but predictable question about socialization, and we chatted about the various community opportunities available and the negative aspects of socialization that parents wanted to avoid.
His parting comment was: “Smart City!”
Using his mailing list which he used to encourage education reform, he soon embraced home education and in 1975 started a new publication, “Growing Without Schools.
Meanwhile, Dr. Raymond Moore was spreading the word amongst his mainly Christian audience and paid frequent visits to Vancouver, especially when we held Home Learning Fairs.
You can download the 5 page article: Home Education: the third option to see concerns of 20 years ago reappearing today……
http://www.theschoolsweneed.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/543/Main/543/#Post543
March 11, 2008 1:55 AM | Comment Permalink